Theories of Change & Change of Theory: Twenty years of ASB Partnership for the tropical

forest margins

Meine van NoordwijkThanks to many in the audience and elsewhere for sharing ideas

IUFRO 2014 Salt Lake City: Session C-02 (193) From Understanding Drivers To Gaining Leverage At The Tropical Forest Margins: 20 Years of ASB Partnership

Theory of Change of Theory…

Theory of Change• Rational and implementable pathways to achieve

change that is deemed desirable by funders and acceptable by gatekeepers, accompanied by…

Change of Theory

Answer open Questions

Scie

ntific

stru

ggle

Question common Answers

Theory of Change Theory of Place• Many development agencies

have adopted a ‘theory of change’ language as a more modest and transparent step beyond ‘log frames’ that suppose the world is predictable and controllable

• Focus is still on desirable long-term change (‘impact’), achieved via ‘outcomes’ that can be monitored, but it accepts that ‘boundary work’ involves partners’ agendas and timeframes

• Change is non-linear and strongly depen-dent on context, history, stakeholder processes and cross-scale influences (top-down + bottom up), beyond direct control

• A theory of place provides a frame for understanding context, recognizing similarity domains, inspiration

Core Logged-over Secondary and Annual Grassland Mosaic landscape of agro-forest forest agroforest crops forestry, plantations, crops orchards, woodlots

Temporal pattern, X-

axis

Spatial pattern, X-axis

Institutional challenge at

turning point

X-linkage of actions in landscape

2 3 4 5

Choice of Y-axis

16

Tree

bas

al a

rea,

car

bon

stoc

k

Deg

rada

tion

Defores-tation

Refores-tation

Policy thresholds

Operational forest definition

Theory of Change

Theory of Place

Theory of Place depends on scale, e.g. Indonesia as a country is a point in the centre of the curve,but zooming in to district scale it displays the full spectrum

van Noordwijk, M. and G.B. Villamor. 2014. Tree cover transitions in tropical landscapes: hypotheses and cross-continental synthesis. GLPnews, 10: 33-37. (Open Acess)

Theory of Change -1: Shifting cultivation is a major driver of deforestation,

modernizing agriculture saves forests. before 1993

ASB–scientists rejected the ToC-1hypothesis before the research started, but the name ‘slash-and-burn’ remained a red flag on a

bull for social scientists

Slash and Burn as land clearing method

Swiddening as rotational

system

Shifting Tropical Forest margins

Theory of Change 1: Intensifying agricul-ture to obtain higher yields per ha reduces

land pressure on forest & deforestation (‘Borlaug hypothesis’) 1993-1995

Global de-mand for food, fibre (& fuel)

Land use with low productivity per unit land

Land use with high productivity per unit land

XX

Continued deforestation

Sustainable land use

ASB – scientists rejected the hypothesis (“necessary but not sufficient condition”) as too simplistic in 1995. Hypothesis re-emerged around 2000 as ‘land sparing’

How? Price mechanisms??How? Technical constraints??

Agroforestry

Agro- vs Fores-

vs vsTree

Natural vegetation, biodiversity, wilderness

Culture, control, food

security, profitability

Product value chains

Crop fields, pasture Natural forest

Tree crops

Theory of Change 2A: Tradeoffs between private and public benefits of land use can be quantified; knowing opportunity costs of environmental services frames policy

Global demand for food, fibre (& fuel); returns to land & la-bour; C balance, Biodiversity

Land use with low productivity per unit land

Land use with high productivity per unit land

XX

Continued deforestation

Sustainable land use

ASB – scientists quantified the tradeoff (“ASB matrix”) based on co-located, interdisciplinary, globally comparative methods ; ’theory of place’ missed ‘landscape’

How? Subsidies + TaxesHow? Technical constraints??

1995 current

>30%

Forest

AgroforestryPaddy riceUrban

Watershed 1 Watershed 2

Which one will be ‘healthy’?

Forest

AgroforestryPaddy riceUrban

Hydrographs with decreasing flow persistence (Fp)

Same rainfall, same total water yield

River flow in degrading watersheds become more erratic as the Fp metric increases

Theory of Change 2B: Landscape mosaics (varying on segregated versus integrated axis) shape multi-scale outcomes; require Negotiation Support for effective change

Global demand for food, fibre (& fuel); returns to land & la-bour; C balance, Biodiversity; conflict; water

Land use with low productivity per unit land

Land use with high productivity per unit land

XX

Continued deforestation

Sustainable land use

ASB – scientists explored negotiation support in landscapes with hot conflicts, found tenure reform to be a crucial step, experiment with ‘payments & rewards’ for ES

How? Tenure reform, PES, Watershed Management

2000 current

Carrots, sticks & sermons

Deforestation rate estimates depend more on operational definitions of forest than that they change with time ; data for Indonesia based on common satellite imagery

Theory of Change 2C: Landscape mosaics require fair + efficient reward

mechanisms and/or coinvestment in ES

Global demand for food, fibre (& fuel); returns to land & la-bour; C balance, Biodiversity; conflict; water

Land use with low productivity per unit land

Land use with high productivity per unit land

XX

Continued deforestation

Sustainable land use

ASB – scientists experimented with ‘payments & rewards’ for ES;

How? Tenure reform, PES, Co-investment

2005 current

Boundary work, objects

Who cares, who is affected by or benefits from the

changes in tree cover and associated ecosystem

services? How are stakeholders organized and

empowered to get leverage & influence the drivers? Are both genders empowered?

Why is land use what it is? What are the drivers of

current human activity and what are levers (regulatory

framework, economic in-centives, motivation) for modifying future change?

Who makes a living here, what is ethnic identity,

historical origin, migrational history, claims to land use rights, role in main value

chains, what are key power relations? Gender specificity of

all the above?

So what? How do ecosystem services (provisioning,

regulating, cultural/ religious, supporting) depend on tree

cover and the spatial organization of the landscape?

Gender specificity of appre-ciation and dissatisfaction?

How are forests and trees used? What land use pat-terns with or without trees are prominent in the land-

scape and provide the basis for local lives and liveli-

hoods? What value chains are based on these land

uses?

Where are remaining forests and planted trees? Since

when? How does tree cover vary in the landscape (pat-terns along a typical cross-

section, main gradients), and how has it decreased and

increased over time?

Theory of Change

Theory of Place

lSocio-ecological system dynamics

Generic options

Contextualized

RED/REDD/REDD+/REDD++&

NAMA:UNFCCC COP in Bali

Theory of Change 3A: Landscape-scale coinvestment in ES supports Reducing

Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU as REDD++ alternative) 2008 current

ASB – scientists experimented with ‘payments & rewards’ for ES;

Drivers Response/ feed-back options

Actors/ agents

Land use/ cover

Conse-quences

Livelihoods, provisioning & profitability

A. Rights-based approaches

B. Economic incentives

G

GG

G

G

Theory of Change 3B: Multi-scale, multi-paradigm combination of national com-modification and local coinvestment for

landbased NAMA’s/LAAMA’s 2011now

ASB – scientists contributed to REDD/readiness evaluation, REDD-ALERT analysis, NAMA articulation Sustainable Development Goals as target for integration

Theory of Change 3C: Multi-scale, multi-paradigm combination of national com-modification and local coinvestment for Sustainable Development Goals; now

ToC -1: Shifting cultivation is a major driver of

deforestation, modernizing agriculture saves forests.

before 1993

ToC 1: Intensifying agriculture to

obtain higher yields per ha reduces land pressure on forest

& deforestation (‘Borlaug

hypothesis’) 1993-1995

ToC 2A: Tradeoffs between private and

public benefits of land use can be quantified;

knowing opportunity costs of environmental services frames policy;

ToC 2B: Landscape mosaics (varying on segregated versus

integrated axis) shape multi-scale outcomes;

require Negotiation Support for changeToC 2C: Landscape

mosaics require fair + efficient reward

mechanisms and/or coinvestment in ES

TOC 3A: Landscape-scale coinvestment in ES supports Reducing

Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU as REDD++

alternative)ToC 3B: Multi-scale,

multi-paradigm combi-nation of national com-modification and local coinvestment for land-

based NAMA’s/LAAMA’sToC 3C:

Idem for Sustainable Development Goals;

now

CGIAR system level objectives Competing Theories of Change

Goal 1. Raising rural income through enhanced connectivity with global and national markets, modified by integrated approach to demographic, economic, rural/urban and cultural transitions.

A.Rapid integration in global markets,

B.Optimizing local development pace and connectedness

Goal 2. Closing yield and efficiency gaps in agriculture and food systems. With growing global demand for primary production for food, fibre and energy, current yield gaps (actual yields below potential) and efficiency gaps (current efficiency below potential) are a direct concern, while in the long term an increase in the potential is desirable/ necessary while simply maintaining current levels is a challenge in the face of climate change.

A. Scalable intensification focused on increased input use to reduce yield gaps,

B. Ecological intensification with attention to efficiency gaps and modified demand patterns.

Goal 3. Improve nutrition security to eliminate malnutrition and enhance healthy and nutritious diets. Healthy nutrition requires more than calories provided by staple foods, especially for young children. As dietary choices change, new health issues emerge.

A. Genetically modified staple food crops with enhanced micronutrients and vitamins,

B. Enhanced diversity of food sources in an agrodiversity approach

Goal 4. Achieve goals 1-3 without further compromising environmen-tal quality and the multiple other functions of land, water and biodiversity for human wellbeing, while adapting to changing climates and the avoiding getting too close to the planetary boundaries

A. Land sparing by maximizing agricultural land productivity

B. Land sharing by optimi-zing multifunctionality of land

CGIAR system level objectives Competing Theories of Change